Shut your pie hole! (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() It's not always difficult to tell when someone is homosexual (more so men), I'm sure you've met someone and immediately figured it out without being told as such. Discrimination against homosexuals should be treated the same way it is with the civil rights act and the Americans with disabilities act. It includes many public accomidations (lodging, food, entertainment, sales/rental, health care), I doubt a seamstress or T-shirt shop falls under either act. It should also be pointed out that the gay couple didn't ask the baker to proclaim anything on the cake, he just refused to sell them a cake period BECAUSE they were gay. Left Brain, like I mentioned earlier, they didn't deny service based on "beliefs". They denied service because of the hostile nature of the comment. Regardless, providing public accommodation and allowing someone to voice opinions on a forum are not the same thing. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() No. The internet, and social media, have certainly become "public accommodation" in our society. It's where the exchange of ideas takes place.....much more so than any other venue at this point. And there are certainly people being denied a platform that others enjoy simply based on their beliefs. I give you "Diamond and Silk" being prevented from using Facebook. It's as wrong as a gay couple being denied service from a bakery.....perhaps worse since D & S derived income from FB, the same as others who don't share their beliefs. The left can't have it both ways. If they insist, then I, and others like me, will dig in even deeper. If we are constantly shouted down and deprived of our basic right to go on our way (as with the blocking of roads in protest) then we will simply fight back by saying no to every liberal ideal or tenant. It's why the left lost the last presidential election.....as lost on them as that is. I'm already there. As I have said, socially liberal policies don't bother me.....but I'll go with NO every time under the current climate of double standard. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Well wait a minute.....its ok for a social media site to deny service based on beliefs and thats NOT discrimination but not providing cake service to a gay person is? How does that work? So I think most of you know that I'm as conservative as it comes and I think the bakery situation is a bunch of BS. But the two situations are completely different as your political beliefs do not fall into a protected class. Sexual Orientation does. So yes, apparently you can discriminate against anything that is not a protected class. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Synon It's not always difficult to tell when someone is homosexual (more so men), I'm sure you've met someone and immediately figured it out without being told as such. Discrimination against homosexuals should be treated the same way it is with the civil rights act and the Americans with disabilities act. It includes many public accomidations (lodging, food, entertainment, sales/rental, health care), I doubt a seamstress or T-shirt shop falls under either act. It should also be pointed out that the gay couple didn't ask the baker to proclaim anything on the cake, he just refused to sell them a cake period BECAUSE they were gay. Left Brain, like I mentioned earlier, they didn't deny service based on "beliefs". They denied service because of the hostile nature of the comment. Regardless, providing public accommodation and allowing someone to voice opinions on a forum are not the same thing. The cake debate is certainly interesting, but there's honestly 1000 different ways we're all discriminated against. I'm discriminated against because I'm ugly and I feel that I should be protected. ;-) (ok, just being funny) As for the social media stuff it's absolutely based on beliefs because they don't block progressive viewpoints no matter how hostile. I can't find it now but there was a twitter account named something like "assassinate Trump" and it was filled with the most disgusting hate you could imagine. Several people reported them and twitter responded to every one that it wasn't outside of their terms of service. Yet you have people who are not hate filled, but simply challenge the liberal agenda and they get banned. That being said, here's why I think it's really happening. Twitter is a user policed environment where you or I can report things that we feel violate the terms of service. Those reports go to twitter employees to review. Twitter is based in San Francisco so 99.9999% of their employees are not conservative and they use their own editorial bias. There have been several high profile conservative's being shut down and then after they get pumped up in the media they turn it back on because it's obviously uncalled for. |
|